I'm sorry but if this were Hillary who had survived a flap like this I would never hear the end of it.

I cannot watch people continue to sit by and try to undermine Barack's electability, based on things that aren't completely true.

So here it is:

Democratic Presidential NominationPoll Date Obama Clinton Spread

RCP Average 03/28 to 04/14 48.6% 41.0% Obama +7.6%

Gallup Tracking 04/12 - 04/14 51% 40% Obama +11.0%

Rasmussen Tracking 04/11 - 04/14 50% 41% Obama +9.0%

AP-Ipsos 04/07 - 04/09 46% 43% Obama +3.0%

CBS News/NY Times 03/28 - 04/02 46% 43% Obama +3.0%

Hotline/FD 03/28 - 03/31 50% 38% Obama +12.0%

Link:http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/

What they do have is her winning in Pennsylvania, but there's no comparison as to where she was pre-Bittergate and post-Bittergate.

Pennsylvania Democratic Primary

Tuesday, April 22 | Delegates at Stake: 188

Polling Data

Poll Date Sample Clinton Obama Spread

RCP Average 04/09 - 04/14 - 49.8 41.2 Clinton +8.6

Rasmussen 04/14 - 04/14 741 LV 50 41 Clinton +9.0

SurveyUSA 04/12 - 04/14 638 LV 54 40 Clinton +14.0

LA Times/Bloomberg 04/10 - 04/14 RV 46 41 Clinton +5.0

Strategic Vision (R) 04/11 - 04/13 504 LV 49 40 Clinton +9.0

Quinnipiac 04/09 - 04/13 2,103 LV 50 44 Clinton +6.0

Link: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/pa/pennsylvania_democratic_primary-240.html

Now it's possible that people have other polls. But RCP has Obama up by 7.6 %. It also has Hillary losing to McCain by 1.2% and Obama beating McCain by 0.4%. Granted that's not a lot, but the numbers are what they are.

Numbers aren't opinions, they're facts. We can't keep playing with them. Given that I have to draw the conclusion he IS electable nationally.

Also Obama's not the one trying to run around spreading the word Hillary's somehow unelectable. She, Bill and her surrogates ARE trying to do that to him. Since polls disprove that, and most rational people know that's not the case, I have to shoot back at the notion that he's somehow unelectable.

Anyone who doesn't think he's survived this stupid, media-hyped "Bittergate" well is somewhat delusional.

It was the media that was so sure the people in Pennsylvania wouldn't take Obama's comments in context, not the rest of us.

All of these people aren't even for him, but they at least recognize the truth in what he's saying. I'd love to see either of the other two candidates tell the truth on anything.

Hope a lot of people take the time to read this as it provides a perspective I've never fully understood on crime. Never thought about this interplay of criminal enterprises and the burgeoning global market.

The trick, like Glenny says, is to find a way to regulate this without any one side gaining too much power or conversely creating an entity that would have too much power in and of itself. The question is who could do this? It's certainly not within the U.N.'s capability or mandate. Interpol, given the right working relationships with several of these countries and a large expansion of their resources, might likewise be able to do it.

Still Glenny offers the most provocative and probably effective solution to this problem: simply legalizing drugs. Personally not really sure I like that one, but Glenny does provide some reasons for it.

Didn't Doug Schoen used to be Mark Penn's chief assistant during Bill's 1996 re-election campaign. This guy's almost as dumb as Penn.

If you look at the comments to the post article, there all basically the same things readers telling him how stupid a suggestion and waste of an article that is. In case he hasn't noticed Clinton has already went negative.

Does she pull back from time to time? Sure. Even a lot? Yeah I'll grant you that. But her campaign never manages to stay positive more than a week or so and they go negative every other week. Why do you think she's getting booed every time she brings up the so-called "Bittergate"? Why do you think the polls are showing it hasn't hurt Obama and it's hurting her own numbers when it comes to voters trust? She'd be retarded to adopt these suggestions. They haven't worked so far and they're not going to. It's not 1996 anymore.

by being so biased. No sane individual thinks this was even close to fair.

Next time you take out a hit job just admit it. We don't need to pretend. We get it one of the moderators was a former press secretary for one of the candidate's husbands. He wants her to win. Loud and clear.

Next time let's just not pretend to have a debate okay? Then we don't have to deal with this level of hypocritical b.s.

Joan Walsh you claim to report what is true even when it's unpopular. Grab some courage and step up now.

The voters know what this really was. A sad excuse of an ex-Bill Clinton Press Secretary, George Stephanpolous, taking out a hit job on Barack Obama.

You know it, we know it, everyone knows it. It's why you claim they "fizzled." God, how do you live with yourself? If it's really unfair call it like it was.

A travesty and an attempt to unfairly destroy one candidate for no other reason than George S. and Charlie fear the right wing and utterly want to demolish Barack since they've realized he's closing in Pennsylvania and could win this whole thing.

A sad excuse for democracy, America and a debate tonight. Anyone who watched and honestly evaluated it, can't disagree. The author of this piece comes close to admitting it. An utter, sad, lynch mob of an embarassment. Give me a break.